Talk:Rocket Girl

Version without images and descriptions
I believe the article is more succinct and 'encyclopaedic' when it makes use of links to the artistes' Wikipedia entries rather than as a long list of information. It also conforms to the style of other articles on Wikipedia for other record labels. ahpook (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Tidy up
This article reads like a PR company's profile of the label. There were far too many subjective terms, far too much fluff and not written up to conventional wiki standards. Examples are terms like 'It is suggested that Rocket Girl fills a niche in the music industry' and 'Commentators suggest that every Rocket Girl release is bringing the label closer to becoming a household name.' Whilst I appreciate this label is notable enough to warrant an article with a reasonable amount of information, I believe a number of policies are being breached here, namely SPA (single purpose account) used for (paid?) advocacy, or a COI (conflict of interest) to write an advertorial style article. The tone of the article is not suitable. There is an excess of information which is more suited for other sites such as the label's own site rather than here. Before reverting edits, can any editor interested in this article please review relevant policies (and seek assistance from places such as the Teahouse if need be).Rayman60 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the article has been reverted again. I'll repeat that this longer version is very much at odds with other entries on Wikipedia concerning record labels and seems to defy the very point of hypertext - why scroll though pages of information when hyperlinks provide access to information far more succinctly ? I would also agree with Rayman60 that the article, in some parts, reads a little too like a sales piece for the label rather than a description of it.


 * I'd rather not just change the article back to the short form, as this is starting to get into 'edit war' territory, so I'd suggest the two users who are insisting on the long form to add their comments to this talk page section so we can discuss the article.ahpook (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As you say, it's going to head to edit war territory with reverts. I'm not convinced the unregistered user has any interest in this site other than to maintain their preferred version of this article (that IP address has been used scarcely, and mainly for disruptive/vandal activity). Whoever it is who seems to have a vested interest in the long-form will probably continue to resist changes and ignore the request for discussion, however there is no way the article should exist in its current form.Rayman60 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As neither of the editors who have reverted the article to the 'long version' have added any comments to this talk page, I'm going to shorten the article again. I had hoped for some discussion about this with them, but sadly they haven't commented. If they are reading this, I'd encourage you to have your say here as this is the method Wikipedia suggest for solving differences of opinion such as this, rather than the article flip-flopping between edits. ahpook (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in my article - much appreciated. No vested interest on my part unfortunately. any chance of listing what you feel should be amended on the longer form article. I'm unclear on why pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bloody_Valentine_%28band%29 are allowed to be written in a so called PR(esque) manner, but it is not acceptable on the page in question. I look forward to working with you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that My Bloody Valentine article is PResque at all. However, the excessive information regarding the signed acts are unconventional and redundant, considering that most have their own Wikipedia pages. These appear to be PResque; I personally thought that I was reading the label's website/catalogue instead of the Wikipedia article. Also some of the information here are unsourced. We appreciate your edits; however, these are not supposed to be here. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I would question the My Bloody Valentine page - happy to itemise the challenges on this in another talk page if required. The page in question is for a label that signed the artists hence a description of each has been included. Contrary to your suggestion, the page follows convention, is truthful and has been written in a clear manner. I agree that the artists have their pages - that is irrelevant. The text on the page is not copied from the website. All key items have been referenced. I appreciate your commentary, but I believe that these comments are not justified. Are you able to quote the wiki rules that have been broken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In terms of the amount of detail given on an artist on a record label's Wikipedia entry, I'd suggest using the following as a starting point


 * List_of_record_labels


 * The majority of articles about record labels use lists of links to Wikipedia pages about their roster, not actual details about the artists - a format I believe we should follow here. Any reason not to follow this precedent ? ahpook (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. In response, although I appreciate your opinion, the fact is that some of the artists within the article do not have wiki pages. I think that this page is best left as it is unless there is an official reason (i.e. clearly stated by wikipedia). I am still in the process of uploading the remaining pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.164.196 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are few 'official reasons' for a given layout of a type of article in Wikipedia - in my experience people follow precedent and articles arrive at their final format by discussion and cooperation as they don't belong to anyone. Let's see what other users think about the format before we decide on a final version.
 * I think we should also start a talk page about the artist pages, lets use My Bloody Valentine as a starting point. It reads like a PR piece etc also.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the interests of making the article less cumbersome, would it be worthwhile having a new page dealing with the artists information - a separate 'Rocket Girl Artists' page ? This would make the current page easier to navigate, but still preserve the artists info before pages are created for them individually (which I believe should be the eventual goal) ahpook (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is categorised well and not cumbersome in my opinion. I would not want to separate the artists from the labels page. The contents page works well to allow users to navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The page is well categorised, but I believe it is too long, given the format followed by other articles on record labels. I am quite happy to create the new page and add the necessary link. No information would be lost if my suggestion were to be followed, and the new structure would make the label's information much easier to access without scrolling through the whole page. We obviously have different opinions about how this page should be structured, but I think my solution is a good compromise. ahpook (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just some simple edits to the first part of the article to make it more fact-based. Some of the points removed may have been referenced elsewhere, but a balance must be struck as this is an online encyclopaedia, not a press pack for the label. Please discuss any further changes here before reverting. ahpook (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)